what does "gender-neutral" mean?

[Nom]

<p>

@Maize&Blue22]<br> Boys and girls differ substantially biologically and that has a large impact on behavior.</p> <p>[/quote

This is somewhat true. Certainly, males and females differ morphologically. They have contrasting responses to certain stimuli, as has been shown in many recent studies. But what is to say that sex defines gender? You are more likely to adopt a mascualine gender if you are born a male, according to your "goods". But the existence of intersex people is enough to prove that there is a spectrum of sex and sexuality. This is not only physical, but psychological as well. I firmly believe that this is rooted in biology. Be it nature or nurture (in the sense of environmental influences in eutero and beyond), gender is not a personal decision. What happens, though, is that a sense of gender emerges as one matures. It's much like sexuality in that way. The roles assigned by society to the various genders (only two of which are commonly recognized) are just that: roles. They are parts to be played. In ancient Greece, heterosexual men would befriend young boys and "teach" them. This is a universally upheld historical fact. Through our current social lens, we see such behavior as reprehensible. I certainly do. But the Greeks were not a primitive people, whatever that means. They simply assigned the sexes different gender roles than we have today. There are countless examples of different gender roles, as any sociologist could tell you. You needn't travel to the remote rainforests of Papua New Guinea to find cultures with gender roles that don't jive with those in the United States.</p>

<p> [quote=Maize&Blue22] All the uber-leftist sociology teachers in the world are powerless to change this fact (try as they might).

I am not uber-leftist. I resent your indirect classification of me as a radical.</p>

<p>

@Maize&Blue22]<br> This is from the people who brought you: the idea that football is a "social construct"</p> <p>[/quote

<em>snaps fingers, points to eyes</em> Keep your eye on the ball. I never said that football was a metaphor for war. You are quoting, labelling, and then attacking the label you affixed to me. Not only is that ad hominem, but it's also completely wrong. I am a proud Patriots fan once they're in the Superbowl.</p>

<p> [quote=Maize&Blue22] They have been standard across societies and time for the course of human existance (in broad roles - not in every intricate detail) with a few small-scale, isolate exceptions.

It's a lot like expectations of beauty. In the past, obesity was an attractive feature. It was a sign of status and fertility. In our current age, thin is in. In a study of Playboy cover models over the past 50 years, researchers discovered that the trend was toward skinnier models with less well defined curves. Beauty norms are a component of gender roles. Playboy is market driven. If that's not evidence of shifting gender roles for women, then I have no idea what is. Female CEOs, maybe? The recent surge in womens' education? A decrease in national birth rate paired with an increase in the average age of newborns' mothers? These are all intimately related to gender roles. Boy (or girl, or whatever, eh?), have they changed!</p>

<p>

@Maize&Blue22

They are for nearly every other animal.

Yeah, like the pairs of male or female heterosexual penguins, sheep, and other organisms that have been observed to raise offspring together. When animals of the same sex mate, it's sexuality. Joint responsibility for children, on the other hand, is a reflection of gender. I'm not trying to anthropomorphize zoo animals, here, but they aren't just mounting each other. Gay or not, they're behavior as parents is opposite what their sex dictates it ought to be. Admittedly, the penguins did not succeed in hatching their rock, but the point still stands.</p>